* The US Gov did pass the "Monsanto protection act", giving them immunity against law-suits

* The protests. It showed what can be done with organizing.

I think it's time to stop thinking and complaining, and ask how we end this?What do you think is the best way to stop GMO's. At the least, I'm going to post and make video's about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwe0dBJO-usWith 80% of people against GMO's, we should organize. Power in numbers.

Last edited by New World Vegan on Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I consider myself against them as long as their genetically modified plants can pollinate with others, they are not labeled, if they are purposefully made to require/withstand more pesticides.

Social media is effective if you can get enough people aware. You can only buy organic. I think all organics are required to not be GMO. You could make a group on facebook or maybe some already exist. I joined a local group on facebook but it's very small.

I've noticed a few things since I started to buy organic. They don't last nearly as long in the fridge. Meaning most likely the other ones I'm buying were probably modified somehow to not decompose as fast.

I wish you luck. Going to be a huge hill to climb. Lots of money to defend the interests of the seed companies. Money generally trumps ethics until enough people are aware of what is going on.

We don't need to end GMOs. That's ridiculous. There is zero evidence that GMOs pose any health risk. The US National Academy of Sciences has noted that after billions of GMO meals consumed worldwide over the past 15+ years, no adverse effects have been documented. They also found that GMOs are better for the environment with respect to pesticide use. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ ... 4&page=214

The AAAS not only considers GMOs safe, but noted that: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ ... tement.pdf

No one here said otherwise. Your long post should've focused on the business, not defending gmo's. Your overly done - and misguided - post (with lies) shows the corruption behind gmo's. You are not helping.

GMO's and the business behind them are one in the same.

edit: When you say GMO's are safe, you show you haven't looked into it.

Last edited by New World Vegan on Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

When I can, I avoid them. Since the season is here, I buy most of my fruits and veggies from local farmers. 3 food documentaries that I believe whole-heartedly are Food Inc, Hungry For Change, and Forks Over Knives. This is what started me down my vegan path that is still not complete, but trying. These also address GMO foods.

blabbate wrote:The problem is the business behind the GMOs, not the science.

This is exactly right. There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO foods, but all of the current companies in control of GMO patents and litigation are super corrupt. Until Monsanto dies, I hate the idea of supporting Monsanto-funded crops.

There is no evidence GMO's don't pose any health risk because there hasn't been any studies to see if they do. Also since they don't have to label GMO's that makes any study almost next to impossible.

Little too lazy to read that link (no offense it's late), but I find it hard to believe crops that require more pesticides/herbicides are better for the environment.

Also since these crops don't have to be labeled or even regulated if such a health hazard did exist it would be almost impossible to stop it because they cross pollinate with non-GMO crops and even infect many organic "non-GMO" crops. There are strains that have been banned that still aren't eradicated.

No one here said otherwise. Your long post should've focused on the business, not defending gmo's. Your overly done - and misguided - post (with lies) shows the corruption behind gmo's. You are not helping.

GMO's and the business behind them are one in the same.

edit: When you say GMO's are safe, you show you haven't looked into it.

If you want to call me a liar, you better step up with evidence, because otherwise you look like an idiot. I at least provided links.

Emrys wrote:There is no evidence GMO's don't pose any health risk because there hasn't been any studies to see if they do. Also since they don't have to label GMO's that makes any study almost next to impossible.

Labeling and research have nothing to do with one another. Studies aren't going to rely on what's on the label.

More importantly, we have almost two decades of real-world use of GMOs with no attributable harm.

Emrys wrote:Little too lazy to read that link (no offense it's late), but I find it hard to believe crops that require more pesticides/herbicides are better for the environment.

It's not a terribly long link. I'm not sure exactly why the NAS found the crops better for the environment, but my guess would be that the glyphosate-based herbicides are significantly less harmful than the sulfonyls.

Emrys wrote:Also since these crops don't have to be labeled or even regulated if such a health hazard did exist it would be almost impossible to stop it because they cross pollinate with non-GMO crops and even infect many organic "non-GMO" crops. There are strains that have been banned that still aren't eradicated.

Cross-pollination and "infection" are true of all crops, though. That's not a scientific or biological issue. The problem is, as you noted, the regulation (or lack thereof) being far too favorable for the GMO manufacturers.

Well my response was in relation to what you said "There is zero evidence that GMOs pose any health risk.". I took a quick view over that list but I didn't see any referring to human consumption. Are there any? I am curious. That is more what I am concerned over. I don't care whether they harm rats because A. We are not rats. B. Rats don't live nearly as long as humans do. C. Tests done on animals rarely correlate to usable data on humans.

One of my main problems with GMO's is the little to zero regulation. They (the companies) determine whether the products are safe or not. The USDA seems complicit because despite all of their violations they still seem not to care. The USDA has broken a multitude of regulations and been fined themselves for not making sure that these companies are doing their environmental impact surveys and other things.

Emrys wrote:Well my response was in relation to what you said "There is zero evidence that GMOs pose any health risk.". I took a quick view over that list but I didn't see any referring to human consumption. Are there any? I am curious. That is more what I am concerned over. I don't care whether they harm rats because A. We are not rats. B. Rats don't live nearly as long as humans do.

There are a few performed on humans, sure, like http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n ... bt934.html. They're definitely much more rare than those on animals because they're costly and, frankly, not required. And again, we have real-world data, which is massive (billions of meals) and conclusively shows that GMOs are safe.

GMOs are subject to the same testing requirements as any other crop. If they're substantially equivalent to a known-safe crop and if new components (particularly proteins) pass a safety assessment, they don't need to be tested any further. If we didn't have the substantial equivalency exemption, we'd be constantly testing crops, even "natural" ones, every year.

That's incredibly untrue. Animal testing gave us vaccines, antibiotics, heart surgery, vascular sutures, anti-ulcer meds, insulin, anesthesia, pacemakers, leukemia and breast cancer treatments, epilepsy treatments, spinal cord and paralysis advancements, etc. The list goes on and on. It's a surprise when results DO NOT correlate in expected ways to humans. Researchers, especially now, are incredibly good at selecting animals that will provide the best correlation for a given experiment and at avoiding those that would be biologically unsuitable. It's not necessarily moral, but it's effective.

Emrys wrote:One of my main problems with GMO's is the little to zero regulation. They (the companies) determine whether the products are safe or not. The USDA seems complicit because despite all of their violations they still seem not to care. The USDA has broken a multitude of regulations and been fined themselves for not making sure that these companies are doing their environmental impact surveys and other things.

More regulation is fine with me (to a reasonable extent). I don't have an issue with cracking down on them, enforcing regulations more strictly, and gathering more evidence.

I have always been anti GMOs, unfortunetly now they are very hard to avoid as have been in the system for too long now. More needs to be done, but the damage Monstanto has already done is probably hard to reverse.

I watched food inc the other day, the UK is definetly becoming more like the US in regards to big business lawsuits protecting interests.

Has anyone here heard of selective breeding? We have been making 'GMO' foods for a long time, just not as advanced as at the genetic level. We have bred plants for specific properties for hundreds of years, and we are becoming better and better at it. The problem has always been the COMPANIES behind the PATENTS, and the MONEY behind the breeding, not the foods themselves.

Please, anyone here that is afraid of GMO foods should immediately run to their nearest chemist or biologist friend and ask them what they think. There is NO evidence that GMO's are any worse for us than traditional foods. The risk is that COMPANIES choose to breed only the plants that produce them the most MONEY, thus breeding out nutrients in the process.

From Wiki:"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[2][4][7] In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques."[1] The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.[2][4][7] A 2004 report by Working Group 1 of the ENTRANSFOOD project, a group of scientists funded by the European Commission to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to European society,[33] concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops."[34] In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[5]"